Search This Blog

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Romney and Spending Reduction

With all our deficit and spending woes in Washington, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Mitt Romney has been placed here for such a time as this. He is the only candidate who has truly balanced a budget by reducing spending while serving in a public position. He's right when he says that exercising freedom requires economic opportunity. Opportunities not seen in America at the moment, nor will we again unless we get this mountain of debt in line before it is too late. He seems to be just the man for the job.

Ann Coulter sings my own tune but with well-researched facts. This week she says, after introducing facts about Massachusetts' political and fiscal climate and contrasting it with Reagan's California:

But even Reagan didn't stop the growth of state government: While he was governor of California, the budget increased from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion.
Republicans are able to contextualize Reagan's record -– it was California! -- but seem unable to contextualize Mitt Romney's record, even though he had to govern a state far more liberal than California was half a century ago.

The following seems one of the strongest recent example of how tax cuts generate revenue, or not raising taxes at minimum:

Like Reagan, Romney inherited a huge, Democrat-created budget deficit. The existing Massachusetts deficit was already more than half a billion dollars when Romney took office halfway through a fiscal year, with a projected deficit of $3 billion for the following fiscal year.
And yet, Romney balanced Massachusetts' budget each year he was in office and left the state with a surplus, without raising taxes.
To the contrary, every single budget Romney submitted included income tax cuts -- all of which were rejected by the 85-percent Democratic Legislature. (The last time Massachusetts legislators approved an income tax cut was when it was attached to a bill raising their own salaries by 55 percent.)

Isn't that something? I'll repeat that if Mitt Romney talked about himself as well as Ann Coulter talks about him (and the media was honest enough to report it), he would have the nomination in the bag and Obama wouldn't stand a chance at reelection. But the guy has the rare (in a politian) quality of humility. He doesn't like to talk himself up that much.
Ann Coulter also takes on Rick Santorum's record and challenges his conservatism, but you can read that yourself here. In closing:

Mitt Romney has spent no time in Washington. He was a rabidly frugal fiscal conservative in a state where cutting government spending was as foreign an idea as it is in Washington today.

Here's hoping we can get a president and congressional leaders committed to tackling the most serious issue we face.

No comments:

Post a Comment

For a democracy to be successful and for government to reflect and uphold the will of the people, it is imperative that citizens take their voting responsibility seriously enough to be well informed. The first step is understanding that there is no such thing as fair and balanced coverage anymore, including the polls and fact-checkers. Including both sides in your sources of information is essential to forming an educated opinion. Both sides leave things out. For example, the leftist news media leaves out the good qualities in Republicans, the Tea Party, conservative causes, etc.

Comments are welcome but civility is required, hence the blog owner approval requirement. We need to have a discussion across partisan divides, not a shouting match. No name-calling will be approved for publishing in the comments.